Right Wing Nut House

Despite the fact that Speaker Pelosi has made it very clear that Representative Murtha’s slow bleed the troops plan is a non starter, the Pennsylvania Congressman is evidently determined to bring the issue to the floor for a vote. And at least one influential Democrat is hoping he does:

He described his plan to the Democratic Caucus two weeks ago and again more recently on MoveCongress.org last week.

No sooner was the interview aired than Middle East hawks that have been cheerleading this war from its inception (the White House, FOX News and the myriad of entertainers who make up the Republican right-wing noise machine) started licking their chops at the prospect of exposing the Democrats as cut and run peaceniks that don’t support our troops.

They suggest that efforts such as giving our troops 1) mandatory home base time with their families between deployments — 365 days for the Army and 270 days for the Marines 2) sufficient training and equipment and 3) mandatory face to face physical, mental and emotional health evaluations upon their return from combat — a standard practice before this Administration came to power — will demoralize our soldiers and turn the Middle East into a cauldron of blood and chaos.

First, an obvious disclaimer: Representative Jim Moran (D-Anti-Semite) is absolutely, positively, and without qualification not related to me in any way, shape, or form. I would hazard a guess and say that our genes diverged millions of years ago - his branch of the Morans ending up evolving with the slugs and slimy things in prehistoric swamps only to emerge quite recently to slither around the halls of Congress. The true and noble branch of the Moran family stayed in the trees and ate nuts and fruit, learning how to walk upright only recently because, obviously, we were waiting for the invention of the automobile. No sense in walking when you can grab a ride, right?

At any rate, Mr. Moran has it all wrong. There are precious few of us who would not vouchsafe our military people sufficient rest, time with their families, health screening, and adequate training so that they can continue to perform in such spectacularly competent fashion in Iraq.

And there certainly is not a monolithic response on the right to Mr. Murtha’s plan. Oak Leaf at Polipundit:

Having 12 months between deployments, ensuring that soldiers are trained to military (not Democrat/Republican) standards and returning stop loss to an emergency measure not a routine personal policy is good for readiness, good for the troops and good for the Nation.

If you believe in the Global War on Terror, you will support these reasonable common sense measures and let the military (not politicians) set readiness and training standards.

Not only being the “right thing” it is good politics in the long run.

I, and most others on the right would normally agree with these benchmarks. However, despite what has gone on in the past with deployments, this time around, the stakes are far from normal. We are, in fact, in what I think most people agree - both right and left - is the political crisis of the war.

I say this because it is painfully obvious that regardless of how the present surge strategy plays out, this will be the last opportunity for the Administration to succeed in tamping down the violence in Baghdad (and Anbar province) while giving the Iraqi government some desperately needed political capitol to effect changes in society that will give the Sunnis hope for the future.

The oil revenue sharing plan recently agreed to is an excellent first step - a small one to be sure - but hugely significant. It is the first time the Iraqi government has officially recognized the Sunnis in a positive way. All other recognition of the Sunnis in the Constitution were related to strictures against the Baathists. There have also been some petty local laws that have made the Sunnis feel like outsiders in their own country. This is what has been driving the insurgency; Sunnis believing they have no choice but to die or be herded out of Iraq as refugees or fight the government and the foreign troops that enable their oppressors to survive. As long as the Maliki government can make steady progress on other fronts, the surge will have fulfilled its purpose.

But beyond the surge is the almost dead certainty that we will begin drawing down our forces probably no later than the end of this year and at the latest by the Spring of 2008 regardless of whether the surge works or not. There is no political will in Congress even from Republicans to maintain troop levels beyond that date. There will be no precipitous withdrawal. But neither will there be the desire in Congress - especially by Republicans - for the war to continue at its present level.

There will be “redeployments” and troop rotations back home. Those troops will be replaced by Iraqi troops and police who evidently are benefiting enormously from living with Americans in the neighborhoods where they patrol together, especially the latter.

All of this is in the future. The present situation is an acknowledged crisis and extreme measures are called for - even beyond what has occurred in the past with redeployments. To make a crude analogy, suppose instead of redeploying from the States to Iraq, we were talking about redeploying Patton’s Third Army during the Battle of the Bulge.

Patton’s army was facing east and fighting a pitched battle against the Germans on December 19th when Eisenhower asked the General how long it would take to pull his troops out of the line and march them north to hit the Germans in the flank as they moved farther into the salient or “bulge” made by their rapid advance. Eisenhower, not knowing that Patton had already made plans for such a turn to the north, was surprised when Patton told him that it would take only 48 hours.

The move itself would have the effect of “relieving” Bastogne where the 101st Airborne was hanging on grimly, surrounded as they were by the German army. But, despite the inference made by Patton boosters and popular culture, his move north was not intended to specifically “relieve” anyone. It was an offensive operation aimed at destroying the German army who had finally come into the open. The relief of Bastogne would be a consequence of successful operations carried out against the enemy.

Patton had not only planned the move in advance of his meeting with Ike, he actually started his troops moving before he left for the conference. Thus, 72 hours later, Patton’s Third Army was facing the spearhead of the German attack after pulling his troops out of one fight in south central France, turning them 90 degrees, and marching them more than 150 miles to the north in order to engage the enemy in another battle. It was a truly remarkable achievement in logistics and support not to mention a demonstration of the strength and stamina of the American GI.

Now a careful commander may not have pushed his troops so far so fast. And he almost certainly wouldn’t have engaged the enemy without giving his troops a little rest and a chance to eat a hot meal in the bitter cold. But Patton correctly saw the opportunity to crush the German army and he pushed his exhausted troops into the fight immediately. And despite what I am sure could be defined as severely degraded readiness and efficiency within the ranks of the Third Army, those Americans went into battle because of the enormous opportunity the Germans presented the allies by coming out from behind their defensive positions and going on the offensive.

As I said, a crude analogy but I hope my point is understood. There are times when the die must be cast and the risks taken. This is one of those times. The opportunity we have in Iraq will not come again. And while no one is expecting miracles, there is every hope that the situation can improve dramatically enough so that the Iraqi government can begin to exercise more control over their own capitol while taking the steps necessary to bring the factions together and start the long process toward reconciliation and peace.

I daresay many in the military probably feel as Oak Leaf does and I wouldn’t blame them one bit. But at the same time, you can’t shut the political realities off any more than you can forget the sacrifices of the families and troops who are now bearing the brunt of our past failures and mistakes in Iraq by being forced once again to deploy with less time off and less training than they need or the military may desire.

This, for all practical purposes, is it. Time to realize it and act accordingly.

With Vice President Cheney’s “unannounced” visit to Islamabad, the Bush Administration appears to be finally waking up to the fact that the situation in Pakistan has deteriorated to the point that it threatens not only Musharraf’s status as our primary ally in the region in fighting the War on Terror but also the safety and viability of the government of Afghanistan.

Musharraf’s Faustian bargains with several northern tribes - tribes allied with the Taliban and who tolerate al-Qaeda operatives in their midst - has backfired in spectacular fashion. The strictures in these agreements against crossing the border to fight in Afghanistan have been honored in the breach as NATO troops report Taliban fighters pouring across the border in great numbers. And since President Musharraf prohibits NATO forces from carrying out “hot pursuit” missions into Pakistan in order to catch and kill the Taliban when they retreat, northern tribal areas have become safe havens for the enemy who can then rest, refit, and re-enter Afghanistan virtually at will. Pakistani border guards don’t stop them. And the Pakistani army is precluded from operating in those areas as a result of the agreements.

With all this in mind - plus the presence of al-Qaeda in territory that the Pakistani army cannot operate - Musharraf’s credentials as our most important ally against radical Islamic terror groups have been tarnished considerably. In fact, the Administration may very well be losing confidence in the Pakistani President as a partner in both the War on Terror and in supporting the government of President Karzai in Afghanistan.

I have discussed on numerous occasion the impossible position Musharaff finds himself in as a result of his alliance with the United States. As a result, the Pakistani President has been trying - unsuccessfully - to juggle his need to please the Bush Administration (who have doled out $5 billion in military and economic aid over the last 4 years) and his need to appease elements in his own government who support the Taliban and even al-Qaeda.

It is true that Musharraf initially played the role of strong ally, locking up hundreds of Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda foot soldiers following our invasion of Afghanistan. And their help in capturing high value targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been invaluable.

But much of that support has fallen by the wayside. Indeed, it took a herculean diplomatic effort on the part of the United States to keep Musharraf from releasing hundreds of those detainees following his agreement last fall with North Waziristan tribes. Apparently some high level Taliban prisoners were scheduled for release and only the intercession of both the State Department and the CIA prevented that from happening.

And now it appears that Musharaff isn’t even going through the motions of trying to keep the Taliban from Afghanistan soil and is instead blaming the Afghans themselves for their resurgence:

Underscoring growing alarm in the West at how militants have regained ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday sought Pakistani aid to help counter al-Qaida’s efforts to regroup, officials said.

However, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf insisted his forces have already “done the maximum” possible against extremists in their territory _ and insisted that other allies also shoulder responsibility in the U.S.-led war on terrorism…

“Cheney expressed U.S. apprehensions of regrouping of al-Qaida in the tribal areas and called for concerted efforts in countering the threat,” Musharraf’s office said.

He also “expressed serious U.S. concerns on the intelligence being picked up of an impending Taliban and al-Qaida ’spring offensive’ against allied forces in Afghanistan,” the statement said.

If Musharraf actually believes he has done “the maximum possible” to keep the Taliban from infiltrating in Afghanistan, his value as an ally in the War on Terror has dropped considerably.

Fueled by profits from a record poppy harvest in Afghanistan, emboldened by their political victories over Musharraf, and benefiting from help received by elements inside Pakistan including conservative religious parties and the Pakistani intelligence service, the Taliban appear poised to make a major effort this spring to inflict ruinous casualties on NATO troops that would almost certainly awaken the European left and send them into the streets calling for a withdrawal of their nation’s forces from the fight. And Musharraf, buffeted by mounting pressure from all segments of Pakistani society to pull back from his relationship with the US, is probably at the end of his rope and can do little else to assist us overtly in the fight against the Taliban and radical Islamists.

I would suggest the Administration start dusting off their “worst case scenario” plans regarding Pakistan and Afghanistan. And if there’s a rabbit they can pull out a diplomatic hat that will alter the political situation even marginally in Pakistan, now’s the time.

Saw this in the Daily Star of Lebanon - a somewhat pro-western (but by no means pro-Bush) publication. The writer asks the question: “Are things coming together for George W. Bush in Iraq?”

One key factor is that, for the first time since the United States and Britain invaded Iraq, Arab Sunni leaders are backing a US military plan for that country. These Sunni leaders live in abject fear of the geopolitical earthquake that any disintegration of political authority in Baghdad would bring. They believe that all-out civil war would invariably follow - a war that would not respect international borders.

Of course, America has been encouraging Sunni leaders in this belief. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent tour of Middle East capitals helped spread the word to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states that any US failure and sudden withdrawal would be certain to destabilize them. Given the fragile grip that these leaders have over their societies, America’s warnings have been taken to heart.

But the truly curious factor that might bring success to Bush is that those who have opposed or resented America’s presence in Iraq, such as the Iranian-backed Shiite parties, now also appear to want Bush’s new strategy to succeed. They are for it because they believe it will defang Moqtada al-Sadr, the rogue Shiite cleric whose power has mushroomed over the past three years - to the point that he now dominates much of Baghdad and holds the allegiance of countless angry young Shiite men.

This makes the Administration resistance to a regional conference on Iraq all the more troubling. I actually thought the conference idea was one of the only real positive proposals put forth by the Baker Commission. It seems to me that other players in the region who would be directly affected by the kind of pullout envisioned by the Democrats are eager to explore ways to tamp down the violence and help make the Iraqi state viable.

This must hold true especially for Syria and Jordan who are being drowned by a human tidal wave of Sunni refugees from Iraq - more than 2.3 million so far. This doesn’t include the more than half a million displaced Sunnis inside Iraq already - a number that Maliki absolutely must bring down dramatically if our surge policy is to succeed.

But what about the Shias?

Of course, attacking Sadr’s Mehdi Army in the name of fighting militia death squads has the potential to draw American military forces into a level of urban warfare unseen since the Falluja assaults of 2004 and 2005. Sadr is seen as the protector of the Shiites of Iraq and has an estimated 60,000 fighters in his militia. But he is deeply mistrusted by other Shiite leaders, who fear that they may one day have to take him on by themselves. Better to let the Americans do it, though of course these Shiite leaders prefer a slow strangulation of Sadr to a direct and bloody assault.

But make no mistake: How Sadr is handled is the big test of Bush’s new strategy. Should the US choose to face him and his forces head on, they risk alienating Iraq’s Shiites, adding fuel to the anti-occupation resistance and thus probably dooming Bush to failure.

Of course, we’ve been trying to bring Sadr’s bully boys out into the open for a couple of years. It makes killing them easier as we proved in Najaf and Fallujah Sadr City. And both al-Sistani (who can’t stand the upstart Sadr) as well as al-Hakim (leader of the SCIRI) would love to have us de-horn al-Sadr if only because it would leave them a clear field for supremacy among the Shias.

All depends on how willing the firebrand cleric is in seeking a truly political solution to Iraq’s domestic troubles. Even al-Sadr himself may be secretly urging the Americans on so that the more radical (and disobedient) members of his army will disappear. If that happens, it is possible that Sadr will back Maliki’s reconciliation plan with the Sunnis. This presumes facts not in evidence - that Sadr truly wants to work within the political framework of the Constitution in order to wield power and influence. But at the same time, Sadr has also proved himself quite the practical thug in the past in that he came off the streets in the first place to participate in the elections. Perhaps Sadr will see the writing on the wall and rather than risk all by fighting the Americans, he will slip into his Iraqi statesman costume and cooperate with Maliki.

But Sadr is only one of the pieces of the puzzle. The other is in Anbar. And here this Arab observer thinks that we’ve finally hit upon the right strategy:

The “surge” also opens, perhaps for the first time, a serious possibility of pouring water on the insurgent fires in Anbar Province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. The US has achieved relative successes in the province through alliances with Sunni tribes. The hope is that such realistic and pragmatic accommodations will be extended to Iraqis who are fighting under the banner of a nationalist and anti-occupation agenda.

So some of the stars have come into alignment for Bush. But to keep them there in the long term, the Iraqi government will need to amend the constitution in a way that appeases the Sunni community. Reassuring Iraq’s Sunnis that they have a place in the new Iraq will also reassure neighboring Sunni governments, which have mostly turned a blind eye to the support for the insurgency that has come from their lands.

We’re still waiting on Maliki to show some leadership on political issues like reconciliation, oil revenue sharing (which is currently in limbo after Sunnis balked at the deal), amnesty, power sharing, and federalism agreements with the Kurds and Sunnis. Embroiled as he is now in these rape allegations, it remains to be seen if all the good work our people do in tamping down most of the violence will bear fruit at the Iraqi conference table when the factions get together to hammer out accommodations they can all live in peace with.

It appears that the “slow bleed the troops” plan of Representative John Murtha (D-Okinawa) has been withdrawn thanks to the Pennsylvania Congressman’s big mouth. If only Murtha had kept quiet about his cowardly plans to make it impossible for the Pentagon to deploy the troops General Petraeus feels are necessary to the mission’s success by throwing a monkey wrench into readiness and rotation requirements, the Democrats would probably have been able to sneak the amendment through in the middle of the night while no one was watching. Once exposed to the light of publicity, many of his fellow Democrats evidently got cold feet, however.

House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party’s own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“If you strictly limit a commander’s ability to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of inflexibility could put some missions and some troops at risk,” said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who personally lodged his concerns with Murtha.

So what’s a cheese eating surrender monkey to do? Too chicken to vote on defunding the war directly and up front. Too stupid to finesse a comatose President by trying to backdoor a withdrawal through fiddling with deployments and readiness. And actually waiting to see what happens in Iraq as a result of the new strategy is just plain unacceptable.

How about jumping in Mr. Peabody’s Wayback Machine and pretending that the vote you cast for military action actually said no such thing?

“I’ve had enough of ‘nonbinding,’ ” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is helping to draft the new Democratic proposal. The 2002 war resolution, he said, is an obvious target.

“The authorization that we gave the president back in 2002 is completely, completely outdated, inappropriate to what we’re engaged in today,” he said.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) began calling for a reauthorization of the war early last month and raised it again last week, during a gathering in the office of Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Participants included Kerry, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.), Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.). Those Democratic senators have emerged as an unofficial war council representing the caucus’s wide range of views.

An “unofficial war council…?” ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Try “The Official Surrender to the Terrorists Caucus.” That would be more accurate.

As far as the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), just what, pray tell, would you replace this “completely, completely” legal resolution with?

While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

The decision to try to limit the military mission marks the next move in what Reid and other Senate war critics have said will be a multistep effort to force a change in Bush’s strategy and eventually force an end to U.S. participation in the nearly four-year-old war.

Hinderaker:

That sounds like a really great idea. If someone plants an IED or shoots at our troops, they can’t fire back until they determine whether the attackers are al Qaeda or garden-variety insurgents.

I have a feeling this trial balloon is not going to get airborne. One good thing, though: the Dems’ Senate leadership is floating this concept in part because they are unhappy with Mad Jack Murtha’s “slow bleed” strategy. Not, of course, because they object to his objective of bringing about defeat; rather, because they think Murtha’s plan could create political liabilities.

In other words, rather than cut our troops off at the knees by defunding the war why not aim the knife slightly higher and castrate the military by saying who they should be fighting and who they should allow to kill them. If a non-authorized enemy fires upon our guys, maybe one of them can call their Representative and get an amendment passed to grant an exception to the new policy.

Yes, yes it’s an exaggeration and wouldn’t really work that way. But can you see our boys landing on Omaha Beach in 1944 and having to get permission to fight Poles, North Koreans, Hungarians, and the other foreign troops the Nazis put into the front lines just because the Declaration of War didn’t mention any of those nationalities?

I agree with John that this is a trial balloon and not a serious proposal. Unless the Dems want to spark a full scale Constitutional crisis, they won’t do it. Ed Morrissey has them pretty well pegged:

Nor are they opting for an honest method of floating this unconstitutional nonsense. The Democrats plan to attach the reworked AUMF as an amendment to a Homeland Security funding bill rather than allow an up-or-down vote on it in the Senate. They want to dare the Republicans to filibuster the spending bill or Bush to veto it if it passes with the new AUMF intact. They’re playing games with the funds necessary to secure the nation during a time of war — and they expect to be taken seriously on how to conduct one?

In the House, the Democrats plan to offer a different plan after the collapse of the Murtha strategy, but it will be just as transparently partisan. They will propose a more straightforward funding bill for the war, but will include a waiver on any deployment readiness restrictions by allowing the Secretary of Defense or the President to certify that unprepared troops will be deployed into battle. It’s a silly and blatantly partisan mechanism, but that matches the Democratic Congress perfectly.

Their entire strategy consists of sneaking around like criminals instead of standing up forcefully and proudly for what they believe. It truly is nauseating.

Fear not, however. Eventually, through the process of elimination, the Democrats will hit upon a strategy that will stop the war, make Bush and the Republicans look even worse than they do now (if that is even possible), while celebrating their “speaking truth to power” by dancing a jig on the Chamber floor…

At the same time that al-Qaeda is dancing a jig in the streets of Baghdad.

For the last three years, poll after poll has shown an American public who overwhelming believed that the war was mismanaged, that Bush was doing a horrible job in prosecuting it, that it wasn’t worth the effort, that we never should have invaded in the first place, and that we are losing the war.

Of course, the only poll that matters - on election day - saw the Democrats sweep into power promising to “change course” in Iraq. Not defund the troops. Not redeploy to Okinawa. Not carry out a domestic insurgency against the military by setting impossibly high benchmarks for the Pentagon to meet in order to send troops to the war zone. Not even set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal, although a majority of Americans would support a timetable to withdraw some troops over the next one or two years.

In fact, I commented here after the election on the curious disconnect between what Democrats were actually telling the American people before the election and the anti-war “mandate” they were claiming after the vote. With precious few exceptions, the Democrats did not talk about pulling our troops out of Iraq in 6 months or a year. They didn’t advocate timetables for withdrawal. They didn’t run commercials about supporting the defunding of the war or redeploying troops elsewhere.

Their unmistakable message to the voters prior to election day was that they would “change course” in Iraq - an interesting theme that appealed to a broad section of the American electorate. Since even many conservatives and moderate hawks advocated “changing course” in Iraq, this big tent approach obviously worked. At least it “worked” in the sense that the Democrats got their majority.

Two recent polls however, indicate one of two things; either the American people, when faced with the reality of a Democratic majority, are having second thoughts about leaving Iraq before some semblance of order is achieved or, more likely, a couple of pollsters have finally asked the “right” questions about Iraq to reveal what the American people have believed all along.

In fact, this poll reveals what has been one of the best kept secrets of American opinion over the past three years. A fairly consistent majority of between 55% and 65% oppose pulling our troops out immediately (59%). And another consistent sign of support is that a majority (57%) support “finishing the job in Iraq” - keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can handle security on its own. (HT: James Joyner)

The simple minded sloganeering from the left about polls on Iraq and how the American people support their anti-war agenda down the line fails to take into a account that citizens have a fairly sophisticated, nuanced outlook on the war. They think Bush is doing a poor job (60% “strongly” or “somewhat strongly” agree” ), that 52% believe Congress isn’t doing much better, that only 17% want our troops to leave immediately, that a bare majority (50%) believe we should stay until the job is done, that a surprising 56% agree with the idea of supporting the President even if they disagree with him (another 17% “somewhat agree”), and in another surprise, 53% believe that victory is still possible.

Also, a whopping 66% believe that losing the war would cause America to lose its super power status. And 53% believe strongly that the Democrats have gone too far, too fast, in pressing the President to remove troops from Iraq.

The American people are also realists about the outcome. More than 80% believe Iraq will not become a stable democracy after the US leaves.

The other poll taken by IBD shows similar attitudes toward the war, the President, and the Democrats.

What gives? You can believe we are losing the war (as I do) and still support the President and the mission. You can think that the President is doing a piss poor job of prosecuting the war but also believe the Democrats are dead wrong in moving to defund it or throw a monkey wrench into troop rotations. You can be convinced that Iraq will not be a stable democracy after we leave but still think that the country is “a key part” in the War on Terror (57%).

In short, when pollsters start treating the American people as if they had a brain and ask a series of questions designed to elicit responses that, when taken together, give a much more nuanced snapshot of how the people actually look at Iraq, the “anti-war mandate” claimed by Democrats in the aftermath of the election dissolves into mush.

Not pro-war by any stretch and certainly indicating that they have zero patience with both an endless continuation of past strategies as well as political gamesmanship by the Democrats, the American people - practical, realistic, and desirous of getting on with the task of meeting our goals and getting the hell out - have proved once again that they actually understand the stakes in Iraq as well as realizing that things are going poorly and that changes are needed if success is to be ours.

Perhaps if we all stopped treating the public as little children who need to be told what to think, what to believe about Iraq, we could get beyond the one dimensional critiques of the war on both sides and work together on a plan consistent with their wishes to get out of Iraq with the goal of leaving an Iraqi government in place that can handle its own security and not be a threat to us or her neighbors. If those goals are achieved, I think it’s pretty clear that the majority of Americans would see our efforts in Iraq as a success. Perhaps not a “victory” in any realistic sense - but far from a defeat and definitely something to build on in the years ahead as Iraq will continue to struggle with instituting democracy.

Support for our war aims in Iraq will endure only as long as the people believe we have a chance of succeeding. The next 6 months will be critical to that perception as the surge currently underway will seek to create conditions for the Iraqi government to work toward political goals that should broaden its base of support and negotiate with the factions to end the cycle of violence that has Baghdad and its environs in its grip. The patience of the American people has worn thin. It’s time for the Iraqi government to do what is necessary so that our troops can start coming home.

The sooner - the better.

UPDATE

In addition to linking to the raw data, James Joyner also has an interesting summary of the poll results:

“The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory,” said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. “The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.”

“The key group driving public opinion here are what we call the “nose-holders”, said Newhouse. “They don’t believe we should have gone to war or should still be there, but they believe we should stay and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security for their own country.”

Both pro and anti war advocates have ignored “nose holders” for far too long. These are the practical and nuanced Americans I wrote about above. They are smarter than most of us and probably have a lot less patience than pro-war supporters believe. They probably voted Democratic in the elections last November. But they will almost certainly punish the Democrats if they go through with their slow bleed the troops strategy - especially if Republicans get off their duff and make the case that this cynical strategy is nothing short of “cut and run” on the sly.

And I will say to my fellow conservatives that we shouldn’t be doing too much crowing about these numbers. While some of these responses give the lie to any “anti-war mandate” claimed by the left in the aftermath of the election, neither do they represent much good news. Clearly, the American people want out of Iraq quickly. As long as progress is made toward that goal, the President will be able to maintain this support. But if things go south with the surge or Maliki proves himself to be even more of an empty suit than he already has, that support will disappear in a heartbeat.

I can understand the reaction of many conservatives and GOP activists to the decision by 17 House members and 7 Senators to oppose the surge in Iraq. When the leader of your party and your President is in trouble, your first instinct should be to swallow your disagreements and support him. Loyalty to party and its leader should outweigh many concerns.

Indeed, there were many GOP House and Senate members who have grave misgivings about the President’s plan but supported it anyway. Why couldn’t that handful of lawmakers have seen their way clear to standing with the President when he needed them the most?

Mark Tapscott writes about the remarkable growth of The Victory Caucus, a week old internet phenomena that has as its mission:

* Deliver the perspectives and news on the war effort which the mainstream media neglects to help the American public understand the nature of our conflict and its true progress.

* Provide tools and infrastructure to help citizens who are committed to victory organize into a recognized and influential caucus.

* Identify opportunities for the caucus to act and exert influence on America’s leaders and to directly aid and support the men and women of our military.

Tapscott thinks that VC may eventually have the power to impact elections:

Victory Caucus represents something new - an Internet-based campaign wild card with the power to shape the outcome of an election. These campaign wild cards give voice to a decisive segment of the electorate whose concerns are being ignored and/or attacked in and by the major party candidates and the mainstream media.

Unlike the pre-Internet era that saw the Perot movement slip away, I believe it is now becoming increasingly possible with the Internet to not merely conserve the energy and focus of an independent electoral movement but to grow it over time, maintain its focus and even expand its internal structure and coherence.

That may be, but much hard, slogging work lies ahead for VC to have that kind of an impact. And events themselves might overtake the VC’s strong support for the war and the troops engaged in combat. The Democrat’s bleed the troops strategy resonates within their caucus because it gives the party an opportunity to stop the war while not being blamed for abandoning the troops. As cynical a ploy that Murtha’s strategy represents, it nevertheless has a real chance of succeeding - with or without a united Republican party.

And what would happen in 6 months if the surge fails and, more importantly, the Maliki government fails to make the political changes necessary to begin to unite all the factions in Iraq in order to begin the process of national reconciliation? Even the President has indicated that unless there is progress by the Iraqi government in this area, he would re-evaluate our commitment in Iraq. At that point, I would guess VC would lose some momentum if not some cohesion.

But what makes VC’s agenda so problematic is their stated goal of enforcing party discipline when it comes to votes on the war. Hugh Hewitt:

The growth of the Victory Caucus represents the combination of the internet skills of NZ Bear and the lassitude of Beltway Republicans. If the GOP is awake it will quickly begin recruiting and publicizing the candidates with appeal to the sort of voter represented by the Victory Caucus. They will also announce to the White Flag Republicans that they have made their choice, and they cannot expect the party to order shields up.

The voters involved in the VC want the Republican Party to act as though it believes in the mission in Iraq by identifying new faces and new voices with military experience to challenge the 2006 Democrats in red districts. The opportunity exists to channel the tremendous energy unleashed by the “slow bleed” Democrats, as Mark Steyn calls them. But the GOP’s Comngressional leadership needs to wake up to the fact that the activists are amazed at their inaction and defensiveness.

I fully support the pledge I signed that would deny party funds to those who vote against the surge (and support other measures by the Democrats to undercut our efforts in Iraq). But recruiting primary candidates to run against those who for reasons of conscience (or personal political calculation) choose not to support the President?

With the nonsensical dance of nonbinding resolutions in the House and Senate over (for now), it is time to focus on more productive activities. Namely: looking forward to 2008, and beginning the task of idenitfying opportunities for victory-oriented candidates to unseat White Flag incumbents.

There is work to be done. First, we need to research the White Flag incumbents we beileve might be beatable. Our starting list should be as follows:

Any White Flag Republican, defined as one of the 17 Representatives who voted for the House resolution, or one of the seven Senators who voted for cloture on the Senate resolution

Any Democrat in a district (or state) that was won by President Bush in both 2000 and 2004. This indicates that the seat may be vulnerable to a (victory-oriented) Republican challenger.

Perhaps it should follow logically that if you deny party funds to an incumbent for his apostasy, it stands to reason that a search for a primary opponent would be the next step. But I think this goes too far and I think it bad politics.

I wholeheartedly agree that the GOP should make a determined effort to recruit candidates to run against Democrats - especially from the class of ‘06 - with Iraq War experience. In fact, I would say that the dismal performance of the party leadership in recruiting quality candidates for open and contested seats was the number one reason for the GOP’s loss in the last election. The fact that the Republicans failed to defeat a single Democratic incumbent proves my point.

But why waste resources on recruiting candidates to run against Republican incumbents? I notice several House members from the “Gang of 17″ who are in vulnerable districts where they received 55% of the vote or less in ‘06. Defeating an incumbent in a bruising primary in these districts would make the prospects for a general election victory less than certain and may even guarantee a Democratic pick up.

The Senate, of course, is another story. But incumbents like Coleman and Smith face uphill re-election fights as a result of their past support for the war already. The prospects for success by a primary challenger in the general election would not be good under those circumstances.

Aside from all of the political calculations, there is the question of conscience and how much a representative should be penalized for following the dictates of his inner voice. We constantly complain about spineless politicians. And then when a couple of them stand up for what they truly believe, our first move is to rev up a primary opponent for him? Either we trust the judgement and heartfelt beliefs of our politicians or we encourage them to be as calculating in their votes as we hypocritically criticize them for.

I understand the need for party discipline in this matter. But a representative of the people who either votes to reflect the position of his constituents or out of a duty to his own moral precepts and conscience shouldn’t receive a death sentence. It is not wise politically nor is it right.

UPDATE

VC is highlighted in Politico today along with the story about going after GOP reps who opposed the surge.

By the way, if you haven’t bookmarked Politico you really should. Great “inside politics” articles and some first class writing too.

When I wrote back in September about Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s “Faustian Bargain” with the tribes of North Waziristan, counterterrorism experts predicted disaster. I summarized their concerns for The American Thinker:

In effect, the Taliban has carved out an independent enclave in ‘The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan,’ a safe haven for al—Qaeda terrorists, and a base of operations secure from interference by the Pakistani military to better carry out their murderous raids across the border into Afghanistan. They have already established their own harsh brand of Sharia law in the area and allowed training camps for various extremist groups to be set up. And most importantly, they have humiliated the government and weakened Musharraf’s tenuous hold on power.

More ominously, another country now has a terrorist state within a state operating virtually free of the control of the central government but with one potentially catastrophic difference:

This nation has at least 60 nuclear weapons that could potentially fall into the hands of Islamic extremists.

Now the New York Times is reporting that the worst fears of the experts have been realized and al-Qaeda has regained much of its strength, using Waziristan as a safe harbor to rest, refit, and plan their next moves:

Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda.

The United States has also identified several new Qaeda compounds in North Waziristan, including one that officials said might be training operatives for strikes against targets beyond Afghanistan.

Musharraf has been trying to to do the impossible since 9/11. He has been trying to appease radicals, his base in the military and Pashtun tribe, and the United States - all without getting assassinated. He is dealing with an incipient revolt in Boluchistan, a stagnant economy, a push among the people for free elections, pressure from the military to give up his Chief of Staff position, a shadowy intelligence service that created and nurtures the Taliban, agitation from religious political parties to distance himself from the United States, and a restive, radical, anti-American population who is plenty angry at the Pakistani President for helping the US in the War on Terror.

And that help has not been insignificant. For all of Musharaffs trimming and outright lies to us about how well he is fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the fact is he has done the best he can in impossible circumstances. At our insistence, he went into Waziristan in the first place looking to battle the Taliban and al-Qaeda only to get bogged down and watch as his military suffered regular casualties without making much headway in the mountainous, nearly impassable country. The treaty that led to the current catastrophic situation was a necessity - at least from Musharraf’s point of view. His fragile hold on power is dependent on his enemies not being able to coalesce in opposition to him. And his military moves against the northern tribes was extremely unpopular.

Just recently, he has bombed the camps in the northern territories, once again at the insistence of the United States:

Al Qaeda is fighting back against the Pakistani tactic of bombing terrorist camps along the Afghan border. In the last few weeks, terrorists bomb attacks have killed over a hundred people. Police have also prevented several additional bombings, capturing bomb making materials and documents proving the al Qaeda connection. Some of the captured bombers were actually preparing for attacks on Shia religious festivals next month, but most were revenge hits ordered up by al Qaeda.

Pakistan is in a tough position. With most of the population either enthusiastic, or supportive, of Islamic radicalism, it’s difficult for the government to declare open war on the tribes providing bases for the Taliban and al Qaeda along the Afghan border. Officers have already reported that up to a third of their troops might be “unreliable” if there were sustained military operations in the tribal territory. Yet, if the government does not go after these bases, the people in them have vowed to continue building their strength until they can topple the government. Such a headache.

Our leverage over Musharraf is simple; $2 billion in direct aid every year since 2002 and help in restructuring Pakistan’s massive debt burden. Beyond that, Musharraf knows what will happen if Pakistan becomes another base for al-Qaeda terrorists to strike western interests with impunity. For the moment, the US and NATO is obeying Musharraf’s absolute restriction on “hot pursuit” of Taliban fighters who have infiltrated into Afghanistan and move effortlessly back across the border into Pakistan. But Musharraf cannot be insensitive to the fact that the patience of the US is wearing thin and that taking matters into our own hands is an option that is not off the table.

Musharraf has also banned air operations against the Taliban (although he has relented on a few occasions when a high value AQ target was sighted) and denied entry even by Special Forces - although there have been hints that he has simply turned the other way with regards to both American and French Special Operations that have been run in the northern Afghan-Pakistani border area.

Ed Morrissey sums up our dilemma with Musharraf pretty well:

Western intelligence and military agencies are unsure how to proceed. American military strikes on these bases will violate Pakistani sovereignty, but Musharraf has not been willing to take on the task himself. The West cannot allow AQ to operate so easily, and the Bush doctrine certainly would apply here. However, if people thought Iraq was such a “meatgrinder”, as one CQ commenter recently put it (and later retracted), it would be a walk in the park compared to an invasion of Waziristan and an occupation of that region. It would almost certainly pull down the Musharraf government in Islamabad, and its replacement would almost certainly be Islamist. Its army and intelligence services would immediately begin to attack American positions in the mountainous country, and we would then be at open war with a nuclear power. Plus, the lines of communication would make it difficult to resupply our troops even if that war went reasonably well; we could not hope to hold Waziristan for a significant period of time.

Besides, given the nature of AQ, even targeted American strikes could not guarantee that they could be “surgical”, ie, not create collateral damage to civilian populations. We also could not be sure that we had destroyed the core AQ targets, although the camps would be enough for now. Escalation of the war in Afghanistan would have to get NATO’s buy-in, and it would open up the White House to more attacks from Congress, including another defunding threat.

Allah adds this:

The stupider, more reactionary types among the nutroots will try to blame this on Chimpy’s Iraq gambit, but one has nothing to do with the other. The issue here is Pakistani sovereignty, not troop levels, and in any case there aren’t enough men and women in the U.S. military to occupy a country of 160+ million people with nuclear weapons and a jihadist power base that’s the envy of the Wahhabist world. We might have enough troops to invade and occupy the tribal areas if Musharraf was willing to cut a deal on that, but (a) what could we possibly offer him to get him to effectively cede territory, (b) how could he hope to survive the irredentist backlash among Pakistanis, and (c) if you think 3,000 dead in Iraq is bad, what would the numbers look like with U.S. troops fighting Iwo-style cave-clearing warfare in the mountains of Waziristan with jihadis from every shinolahole in the Middle East streaming in as reinforcements?

Truly, remarkably, ignorant is the reaction from much of the left. Bush has been blamed for Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, and a variety of societal ills that the rational among us recognize as not being the responsibility of government. But the delusion that the United States government - run by anyone - should be able to find a way to help Musharraf or mitigate his problems is beyond stupid.

Pakistan is a sovereign country. Those anti-American feelings among the population were there long before Bush took office. And the fiercely independent tribesmen in the north have been fighting the central government in Pakistan since the partition with India 60 years ago. The Taliban, as I mention above, was created by the ISI who has a vested interest in seeing that they survive. Musharraf himself was a big Taliban booster until 9/11. And Pakistan has always taken a proprietary interest in what happens in Afghanistan, seeing that country as part of their sphere of influence.

Taking all that together, only a monumental idiot would blame President Bush for the state of affairs in Pakistan. Here’s one:

So while our Great Decider Bush was busy deciding whether he wanted Osama dead or alive, or didn’t care about him anymore, the real terrorists weren’t waiting around to for his final answer. And now we have a hell of bigger problem. Musharraf’s government is holding on by a thread as it is. He can hardly afford to rile up the Islamic extremists without risking a major coup. The US can hardly go in and start bombing the place willy nilly without triggering the same reaction and possibly riling up a bunch of countries in the region whom we are sure possess nuclear weapons. Not to mention the inevitable civilian deaths in such a strategy would really get the people in terrorist recruiting country even more energized.

It surely would have been better if Bush had finished the first war he started before he expanded the front all over the globe. It couldn’t be anymore screwed up if he did it deliberately. Makes you wonder if creating international chaos wasn’t the goal from the beginning.

“Finished the first war…?” Who, pray tell, would we have been fighting? Goats? Sheep perhaps?

The Taliban had been driven out of Afghanistan. And the sovereign country of Pakistan refused to allow us entry to finish them off. Of course, if we had violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and gone in anyway, Mr. Impolitic would have had apoplexy. Nor does our deranged lefty cousin say anything about the responsibility of the Pakistanis in the aftermath of the War in Afghanistan. We had been assured by Musharraf that the Taliban would be held in check and that al-Qaeda would be dealt with. Given the circumstances and the alternatives, we had very little choice but to believe him.

No, I blame Bush for much of the debacle in Iraq as well as the fact that there are still too many soft targets here in this country. But I cannot stand by and watch truly ignorant, reflexive, bashing of President Bush over a situation that is not his or the government’s fault. The problem of Pakistan is one of geography. It is one of sovereignty. It is one of history that occurred long before George Bush became President. It is about radical politics that Iraq has only marginally affected - that, in fact, our invasion of Afghanistan (you know, the one that our super patriotic liberals say they supported) roiled the streets of Pakistan far more than anything that happened in Iraq.

None of this matters. The left is in a comfort zone when blaming Bush and I daresay they will continue to do so long after his term of office is over.

More evidence that this ain’t your daddy’s surge:

A U.S. military spokesman on Thursday hailed a joint American-Iraqi raid on Baghdad’s leading Shiite Muslim mosque as proof of that the Baghdad security plan is being applied evenly against all sides of the country’s sectarian divide.

The raid, which took place Wednesday, angered the mosque’s imam, who took the unusual step of canceling Friday prayer services at the historic Baratha mosque, where, Shiites believe, Muhammad’s son-in-law, Ali, converted a Christian missionary to Islam in the seventh century.

Sheik Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, a member of parliament from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, denounced the raid, which the U.S. military said had turned up a cache of illegal weapons. The Supreme Council is one of Iraq’s largest political parties and part of its governing coalition.

Searching mosques has been a particularly sensitive issue since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. In delivering the decree that legalized the security plan earlier this week, Iraqi army Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar said soldiers would enter mosques only if they were used “for illegal purposes” or to protect citizens from harm.

Our intelligence is so good that the problem isn’t so much finding the weapons as finding the will to confiscate them. To do this, we are going to have to confront the militias, raid mosques, arrest government officials, purge the army and police, and in the process, try and avoid civilian casualties.

A tall order all of that. And I suspect we will continue to hear complaints from some of the beneficiaries of the sectarian violence:

Al-Saghir said he’d called the defense and interior ministries and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s office, demanding to know who’d authorized the search.

“All of them denied any knowledge about the raid,” Saghir said. “One of the Iraqi officials told me that the U.S. officials in Iraq are confused.”

Iraqi government spokesmen didn’t return calls Thursday.

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Chris Garver, a spokesman for the coalition forces in Iraq, said American soldiers had entered the mosque only after the search had been completed and then only to help Iraqi special forces haul out the weapons.

The search showed that the security forces would target Shiite militias, even if they had to enter mosques, he said.

Sounds to me like a case of “plausible deniability” on the part of Iraqi authorities. To prevent al-Maliki from throwing a monkey wrench into politically sensitive ops like raiding a mosque, they have been deliberately kept in the dark, only being told of the broad outlines of the plan.

I can see where this might lead to some complaints that al-Maliki is not in control and has zero influence on what happens in his own country. But you don’t need a surge or Baghdad Security Plan for that statement to be true. The whole point of the operation is to give al-Maliki that control - at least in Baghdad. What he does with it will determine how quickly we can draw down our forces.

Will going after the most important Shia mosque in Baghdad allay some of the fears by Sunnis that we will only target their militias and deaths squads? Not until we directly confront the Mahdi Army will the Sunnis believe that the surge will be an equal opportunity destroyer. As if to highlight that point, American aircraft bombed a Sunni-dominated part of southern Baghdad near Dora. The Sunnis in Dora have practiced a little faith-based cleansing by ejecting Shias and Christians who have lived in the area for generations, killing dozens. The use of aircraft is an escalation that we will almost certainly see more of as fighting intensifies around the city.

Last June as the Senate was debating various proposals for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, I wrote the following:

Any timetable for withdrawal necessarily obviates any thought of victory. And if you don’t believe that victory is achievable then clearly you believe we have lost already. Trying to split the difference between victory and defeat in war is not possible. One side wins and one side loses. Hence, by offering this “timetable,” the Democrats are saying that we have lost the war and should leave in order to cut our losses.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this position, by the way. It is defeatist. It is cowardly. But there is nothing necessarily incorrect in admitting defeat and pulling out.

But what makes the Democrats position immoral is that they are not advocating this timetable to get our troops out of harms way as fast as possible. In fact, they are terrified of the political consequences of doing so. Instead, they opt for the Viet Nam approach. According to them, the war was a mistake to begin with, it was fought incompetently, it was illegal, and we’ve already lost since there’s no way we’re ever going to say that George Bush won the war. But instead of advocating an immediate withdrawal of all American forces, we are going to advocate that more young men die in a losing cause just so that we don’t appear to be “cutting and running” and thus, lose badly at the polls in November.

If there has been a more cynical, immoral ploy in the last half century of American politics, I can’t think of it.

As House Democrats prepare to open debate on the Iraq war resolution, we have further evidence that when it comes to having the courage of their convictions, the House Democratic leadership has feet of clay:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration’s options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition’s goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement — the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

A “slow bleed strategy?” Whose blood? I daresay it won’t be any of the Democratic leadership.

There is nothing noble about war. There is nothing uplifting or heroic about fighting one. Individual acts of heroism notwithstanding, war ultimately represents a failure of some kind. For the United States, sleepwalking during the 1990’s while al-Qaeda gathered strength and states like Iraq trained terrorists with utter impunity, it was a failure of intelligence, of diplomacy, of will, and finally a failure of imagination that led to the catastrophe of 9/11.

There is nothing moral about war except its quick and decisive ending. And whether or not you believe Iraq was a war of choice or whether you think it was thrust upon us by the exigencies of the times, the fact of the matter is we either fight to win - and win as quickly as circumstances allow - or we admit defeat and leave, accepting the consequences of our folly while holding harmless the young men and women who sacrificed much in service to the government and the people.

I say to you that whether you believe this war to be moral or immoral, the actions of the Democratic leadership in deliberately drawing out our withdrawal because they lack the political courage to take a stand on what they believe and cut off all funding for the Iraq War to bring the troops home now constitutes a towering act of moral cowardice rarely seen in Congress. Perhaps the debates over the Dyers Anti-Lynching Bill of 1918 would find an echo in today’s craven attempts by Democrats at avoiding responsibility for the moral consequences of their loudly proclaimed position on the war.

Instead of leadership, we get glitz and smoke and mirrors. Instead of a sober, serious approach to this issue of life and death, war and peace, we get the circus of a meaningless, degrading resolution that states opposition to sending more troops. And instead of bold, clear cut, up or down votes on whether we should stay or go, it appears we are going to get the tactics of the saboteur and assassin; cowardly end runs that seek to undermine the military in ways that even an enemy of this country could only dream:

Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That’s a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.

In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

President Bush, the lamest of lame ducks, whose approval ratings are in the low 30’s, apparently still frightens cats, little children, and the House Democratic leadership:

Pelosi and other top Democrats are not yet prepared for an open battle with the White House over ending funding for the war, and they are wary of Republican claims that Democratic leaders would endanger the welfare of U.S. troops. The new approach of first reducing the number of troops available for the conflict, while maintaining funding levels for units already in the field, gives political cover to conservative House Democrats who are nervous about appearing “anti-military” while also mollifying the anti-war left, which has long been agitating for Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to be more aggressive.

“What we have staked out is a campaign to stop the war without cutting off funding” for the troops, said Tom Mazzie of Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq. “We call it the ‘readiness strategy.’”

Perhaps if Mr. Bush were flat on his back and tied down, the House Democrats would feel up to challenging him over war funding. As it is, they must slink along in the shadows, applying the “slow bleed strategy” while making up clever nomenclature to describe their perfidious behavior.

I hope the Republicans expose this strategy for the immoral cowardice it represents. Because there is very little nuance when it comes to war. This is why I say support the war and fully fund the troops and the surge or oppose the war and seek to defund the conflict. The Democratic strategy in this case gives us the worst of both worlds; no commitment to victory while refusing to acknowledge that their monkey wrench strategy - their “slow bleed the troops” strategy - does nothing except prolong the agony of the war just so that they can avoid the political pain and risk a stand up strategy would entail.

The Democrats say they ran on a platform of bringing new leadership and new ideas on the war. All right then. Lead. Give us new ideas - even if those ideas involve forcing the President to remove the troops from Iraq. Cowering in the face of tough political choices only reinforces the notion that you don’t have the guts to lead this country in its hour of greatest need.

Simply put, this “strategy” is unworthy of a majority party. Perhaps if you start acting like you run the place, you’ll grow a pair and wake up one day national leaders who can stand on two feet rather than sneak your agenda for the war through using legislative tricks and sleight of hand.

For shame, I say. Shame on you.

UPDATE

Bryan at Hot Air:

If they do what they’re apparently planning to do, “slow bleed” will be a very apt description. Those doing the bleeding, slowly, will be US troops.

Got that right.

Hinderaker:

So the Democrats will do their best to make the United States’ effort in Iraq fail, but without taking responsibility for that action, and then try to benefit politically from the country’s defeat. Nice.

Don’t know if I’d go quite so far. After all, there is very little chance anyone will see the loss of the war as anything but the President’s fault. But the political strategy sounds about right.

UPDATE II

Even the netnuts are getting antsy. Matt Stoller:

Is it time to work to run primary campaigns against Democrats who won’t argue for ending the war? There are immense incentives in DC that play into the status quo. Democrats think that Bush is going to be blamed for Iraq, and he will be. But Democrats have power, and that means that Democrats have some responsibility. It’s obvious that no Democrats in DC, with a few exceptions, feel any pull towards withdrawal. So they are screwing over us, who voted them into office to end the war, and we’re enabling them with cheerleading.

We must put incentives in place to stop this madness. And believe me, it’s madness. I live here. This is full of crazy people in suits who think that spending $1 trillion on defense a year is a good thing. And those are the progressives!

The US says he’s in Iran. Some of his supporters say that he’s still in Iraq. Just where is the butchering sadist?

First, the US view:

While members of the U.S. House of Representatives take turns weighing in on President Bush’s planned troop surge in Iraq, the focus in Iraq is not on the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country’s most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials, al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, “He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house.”

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.

AP, however, is reporting that Sadr is still in Iraq:

Supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr said Wednesday that the radical Shiite cleric was still in Iraq, denying a report that he fled to Iran ahead of a security crackdown targeting his militia.

An Iraqi government official said al-Sadr was in the Shiite holy city of Najaf Tuesday night, when he received delegates from several government departments. The official, who is familiar with one of those meetings, spoke on condition of anonymity because he has no authority to disclose information on his department’s activities.

The denials came after a senior U.S. official said Tuesday that al-Sadr left his Baghdad stronghold some weeks ago and is believed to be in Tehran, where he has family.

The official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss U.S. monitoring activities, said fractures in al-Sadr’s political and militia operations may be part of the reason for his departure. The move is not believed to be permanent, the official said.

Al-Sadr’s militia is blamed for much of the sectarian violence and is widely seen as the main threat to Iraq’s unity and high on the list of targets for the Baghdad security operation.

I wonder if the “anonymous official” is related to Jamil Hussein?

Actually, I think both stories are correct. It is possible that al-Sadr has moved his base of operations to Tehran but could very well make periodic trips back to Iraq. But what is really troubling is the thought that Mookie has lost control of his militia and now fears some of them as much as he fears the Americans.

As long as al-Sadr was the leader of a radical religious militia opposed to the occupation (and any Iraqis who cooperated with us), his followers were united. But once the radical cleric stepped into the political arena, he risked the cohesion of his organization. Indeed, this appears to be what has transpired. Al-Sadr has spoken out frequently the last few months against sectarian violence. While most observers see his denunciations as pro-forma and insincere, some of his commanders apparently went off on their own and formed death squads in order to “cleanse” Iraq of Sunnis. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told Newsweek back in August:

“There are forces that are controlled by Moqtada, but there are commanders that are not controlled by him; there are death squads that are not controlled by him.”

This is what our people saw from the Mahdi Army 6 months ago:

Under the leadership of Sadr, the Mahdi Army was considered a containable force, susceptible to political bargaining. But as Sadr has leaned toward moderation—his party now has 30 seats in the National Assembly—men fighting under his militia’s banner have become more aggressive. In interviews with NEWSWEEK, Mahdi Army members, Iraqi politicians and Western officials describe an organization in which local commanders are increasingly independent from Sadr, splintering into cells of fighters committed to civil war. There are at least four offshoot Mahdi leaders in Sadr City alone; some groups are taking orders from Iran. There’s similar fragmentation in the largely Shiite cities of Najaf and Basra. According to a U.S. military intel official in Najaf, Coalition forces have been attacked by individuals who get their inspiration from the Mahdi Army but are not official members—men with “an AK-47, an RPG and a Sadr poster,” says the official, requesting anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.

The situation is so volatile that, according to the U.S. officials, Sadr now fears for his own safety and position.

According to the AP article, Sadr sleeps in a different place every night and rarely appears in public. This could be due to a combination of fear of his own people and fear that the Americans have placed a bullseye on his forehead. Either way, Sadr has limited choices open to him. He can continue to try and work within the political system (where his radical anti-Sunni positions have been a hindrance to the government’s efforts to draw the Sunnis into greater participation in Iraqi political life) or he could become even more radical and begin open warfare against the United States.

In fact, there is some evidence that while many of us here in America have been critical of the Bush Administration for not “going after” al-Sadr, the military may have been trying to draw the Mahdi Army into open conflict with the Americans all along.

Bill Roggio:

While much of the public’s perceptions of the efforts against Sadr are shaped by operations in Sadr City in Baghdad, the Coalition and Iraqi government are chipping away at his power base outside of Baghdad. The series of raids and clashes, often masked as efforts against “criminals,” “thugs,” “death squads,” and “kidnappers,” are being conducted against the extreme elements of Sadr and his Mahdi Army. The goal is to remove Sadr from a position of influence, either by force or his surrender, and split his power base. Sadr’s lieutenants are being systematically targeted, which will drive him to either fight or withdraw.

You may recall the operation carried out by the military in late October following the kidnapping of an American serviceman where all of Sadr City was sealed. Only the intercession of Prime Minister Maliki who ordered a lifting of the blockade saved the Mahdi Army from a confrontation then. At that time, we were targeting known death squad leaders - some of whom had denounced Sadr for joining the political process and for not being radical enough in trying to cleanse Iraq of Sunnis.

Now it appears that we are once again prepared to hunt down and destroy al-Sadr’s creation. But should we target Sadr himself? Ed Morrissey feels that by driving him out of the country and into Iran, the anti-American cleric may have destroyed his own credibility:

And as for Sadr, this will destroy him and his Mahdi Army. ABC reports that Sadr wants to try to run the Mahdis from Tehran, but his credibility as a jihadi just tanked. Who’s going to fight for someone who won’t stand up for himself?

And the Iranians surely have to be thumping their foreheads over his bug-out. The US had just demonstrated that the Iranians had backed the insurgencies, which the Iranians disputed, and the chief of the Shi’ite militias announces that he’s going to become a remote-control general from their turf. It’s going to be very difficult for anyone to pretend that Iran has not actively fueled the insurgencies while Moqtada directs his armies by long-distance telephone calls.

This demonstrates that the US forces have seized the initiative in Baghdad, and that the Maliki government has apparently completely abandoned Sadr. It’s a tremendous victory in the preliminary stages, and it sets the table for an end to the hottest part of the insurgencies in the Iraqi capital.

I’m not in complete agreement with Ed. This “victory” is actually part and parcel of what we’ve been seeing not only from the Mahdi Army but also insurgents and death squad members. They are leaving Baghdad in anticipation of the crackdown. Once a modicum of peace is restored and the Americans begin pulling out, they will probably be back - with a vengeance.

I agree with Ed that this knocks the chocks out from underneath the argument made by war critics that the surge will have no effect on the violence in Baghdad. The fact is, it already has. It is now up to Maliki and the Iraqi government to take advantage of any lull in the violence and reach out to the Sunnis in order to build a truly national government where all Iraqis feel they have a stake in the future.

Since Sadr refuses to change his ways or alter his ultra Shia nationalistic beliefs, he has become a political liability for Maliki. This could be why the Iraqi Prime Minister has abandoned him to the tender mercies of the American military and why Sadr sleeps in a different bed every night.

UPDATE

Did Maliki set up Sadr’s exit to Iraq in order to avoid capture by the Americans?

Alphabet City:

Question: A cowardly act by the Shia Benedict Arnold who fled into Iran because Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki abandoned him?

The other possibility, the document is genuine and Muqtada has not run with his tail between his legs but has been secreted away in Iran with the blessings of PM Maliki and NSA Mowaffak al-Rubaie. Both belong to the Dawa Party which forged it’s ties to the Khomeinists during Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s exile in Najaf in the late 1970s.

Since it would fully be in keeping with Maliki’s efforts to protect al-Sadr over these last months, I would tend to think that the letter is genuine and represents a sell-out by Maliki of our military and of the man who has sacrificed his personal and political standing with the American people to support him; George Bush.

The extent of this betrayal is too ghastly to comprehend. What it says to me is that Maliki has no intention of seeking a political solution to Iraq’s troubles and has thrown in his lot with the ultra Shia nationalists who want a Sunni-free Iraq. How they get to that point will make Bosnia look like a picnic and Darfur pale in comparison. Tens of thousands of Sunnis killed with millions on the move as refugees. Utter, complete chaos and disaster.

Is there no one in Iraq with the vision and the guts to lead the country to something better?